News of the World phone hacking: Reaction to the MPs' verdict

The House of Commons culture select committee has accused News International executives of 'collective amnesia' over phone hacking at the News of the World. Here are the details of the case, reaction and ramifications

Updated

Les Hinton, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks at a St Bride's service in 2005 to mark the departure of the last news organisation from Fleet Street Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Getty Images

"A key Commons committee report on the Press was hijacked by Labour MPs for political gain, one of its members has alleged.

It was supposed to concentrate on issues of freedom of speech, privacy and libel "tourism". But Labour MPs tried to link the Tories with bullying allegations that shamed Downing St.

The committee also spent seven months probing a phone-tapping scandal, for which a News of the World journalist was jailed, but uncovered no new evidence.

Tory MP Philip Davies said: "There was a feeling the report was being abused for narrow, petty party political advantage. The main purpose was to defend freedom of speech."

Labour MPs wanted to smear Tory communications boss Andy Coulson, an ex-News of the World editor. But the report found "no evidence" he knew phone hacking was taking place."

On the question of "new evidence", the report states:

"The Guardian articles did contain new information, in particular, concerning the payments to Gordon Taylor and others and the 'for Neville' email. This inquiry has subsequently revealed more facts, including the pay-offs made to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire and that they tapped the phones of the princes themselves. They also highlighted the fact that a culture undoubtedly did exist in the newsroom of News of the World and other newspapers at the time which at best turned a blind eye to illegal activities such as phone-hacking and blagging and at worst actively condoned it. We condemn this without reservation and believe that it has done substantial damage to the newspaper industry as a whole."

8.06am: Beyond phone hacking, the select committee's report is also the most wide-ranging review of newspaper law and practice for many years:

8.40am: The Times' coverage of the Select Committee report focuses on "No privacy laws, but the media must behave, say MPs" and outlines the main points: • No legislation on privacy• Press Complaints Commission to recommend prior notification to the subject of articles, subject to a "public interest" test• A new law to clarify Parliamentary privilege and ensure free and fair reporting• The burden of proof should be reversed in the case of big corporations so that they must prove libel and not the defendant• Action to curb the use of super-injunctions and research to discover the extent of their use• A new regulator, a Press Complaints and Standards Commission

Beneath this story is a six paragraph story that declares: "Publisher accused of 'collective amnesia' over phone-tapping scandal"

9.31am: The political reaction to the report suggests that this might be a watershed moment in the relationship between political parties and News International newspapers.

After years of tip-toeing around Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, Labour were rewarded by The Sun declaring itself against the Government last autumn. Now Labour - and the Liberal Democrats - have been unusually outspoken in their reaction to the select committee report (and remember, the committee is chaired by a Conservative MP, John Whittingdale).

News International is facing the threat of a judicial inquiry, with Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne saying:

"The select committee report blows a gaping hole in the News of the World's line that only a sole rogue reporter was involved in illegal hacking of phones, and reveals enormous worries about the feeble response of the Metropolitan police in investigating what was clearly widespread illegal activity.

"There are very serious issues at stake here for the privacy of the citizen and the report highlights deep concern at the weak reaction to these illegal intrusions by News International, the Press Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan police and the information commissioner."

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw adds:

"This report contains extremely serious questions for News International. It says lawbreaking was condoned and that the company sought to conceal the truth."

The report was very clear in its clearing of Andy Coulson - who was then editor of the News of the World, but is now the head of communications for the Tory party - saying that there was no evidence that he knew about illegal phone hacking.

Jim Naughtie: You talk about 'obfuscation and collective amnesia'. That suggests you don't believe you were told the whole truth...

John Whittingdale: Well, we were given assurances that only Clive Goodman knew about the phone hacking ...

JN: Do you believe that?

JW: Well, we've now discovered that actually the extent of the phone hacking went very wide indeed. We'll probably never know quite how many, but the police have already now said that [it was] 91 individual numbers. Clive Goodman was the royal reporter - you could understand why he might be interested in hacking into members of the royal household, which did occur, but not why other individuals were involved, and we found it very difficult to find out further information. There is a mysterious email containing a transcript of a telephone conversation that was hacked, which nobody can recall who it was sent to or why it was written...

JN: Do you believe it was going on widely, and understood to be going on?

JW: I think there was a culture which existed at that time which regarded this as normal practice and did not seem to see the problem attached. One thing which we do take comfort from is that has changed now.

JN: You see, the problem is is that you don't believe you were told the whole truth in the evidence - you talk about 'obfuscation and collective amnesia'. Why should you believe assurances now if you don't believe the assurances you were given before?

JW: Well, I think it was recognised that what went on was unacceptable, and of course the editor of the newspaper at the time took responsibility and he resigned. And I think there has been a recognition - not just at the News of the World, but right across the press - that this kind of practice can't be allowed to continue and things have been tightened up.

JN: You know that News International in its response - which is a very robust response - says that some members of your committee were behaving in a party political manner and have violated public trust. Do you think there is anything in that?

JW: Well, I can understand why News International are unhappy with the report. I would only say that the report was agreed by the whole committee. There was one particular paragraph that it was divided on...

JN: That was the paragraph that refers to the judgment against Andy Coulson for bullying and harassment which cost News International £800,000...

JW: Yes, but that particular paragraph the committee did divide on party lines and it wasn't actually anything really to do with the inquiry we were conducting...

"The PCC welcomes the level of scrutiny which the Committee has applied to its practices and looks forward to considering its recommendations at the next meeting of the Commission.

Commenting on the report, Stephen Abell, Director of the PCC, said: "We are glad to see the fundamental recognition of the Select Committee that 'self-regulation of the press is greatly preferable to statutory regulation, and should continue'. We are also grateful that the Select Committee has publicly commended the staff of the PCC, and acknowledged that the PCC 'does a great deal of valuable work both in preventing breaches of the Code and in addressing complaints'. The Select Committee has accepted that 'many people have benefited from a free and discreet service in exactly the way the PCC's founders envisaged'.

"There are constructive suggestions for improving the system which the Commission must look at, analyse and respond to...

"The PCC agrees with the Select Committee's view that we should take an active role in ensuring that standards are upheld. We are, however, concerned that the Select Committee has somewhat underrated the level of proactive work already undertaken by the PCC. This includes the widespread contact with potential complainants, and with representatives of vulnerable people. It also encompasses the training of journalists and editors, and work behind the scenes to prevent harassment and media intrusion. It should not be lost that, every year, thousands of people choose to come to the PCC rather than resort to law. We look forward to improving the Committee's knowledge of our activities in these areas.

"The PCC accepts that the report contains criticisms of some of its structures and practices, which will need to be given due consideration. The Select Committee acknowledged the ongoing independent review into the governance of the Press Complaints Commission, and the Review demonstrates that the PCC is not complacent and is seeking to improve itself and to become more transparent and accountable. The Governance Review is taking a fundamental look at how the PCC matches up to the challenges posed by the media in the 21st Century. It will ensure that the PCC reflects public expectations and good practice in governance generally, and takes account of how media content is now produced and delivered.

"Robust and responsible self-regulation is clearly the most effective, adaptable and desirable way of ensuring high standards in journalism. The PCC is committed to delivering this."

11.57am: If you want to read a variety of viewpoints of the select committee reports, here's a range:

The Independent is very supportive of News International: "MPs' attack provokes the wrath of Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch's News International media organisation has accused a powerful House of Commons committee of bias..."

The Daily Telegraph devotes a page to the committee's report but ignores the phone-hacking findings, other than to point out the controversy over an inserted paragraph about the £800,000 tribunal payout to a reporter bullied by Andy Coulson, former NoW editor.

1.05pm: NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear has weighed into the debate:

"While the spectacle of politicians and Rupert Murdoch falling out over ethics might suggest some of the irony of bald men squabbling over a comb, the report of the Culture Media and Sport Committee deserves to be taken seriously. For News International to accuse the committee of 'bias anddistortion' because it examined a serious episode of phone hacking indicates a lack of appreciation of the important ethical issues involved.

"The News of the World phone hacking incident underlines the need to reform the Press Complaints Commission, whose predisposition towards protecting the wishes of publishers rather than the public interest has robbed it of any real public confidence.

"The committee's finding that investigative journalism in Britain is being 'deterred by the threat and cost of having to defend libel actions' is a welcome recognition of a serious problem which needs urgent remedy to defend the people's right to information of public interest and consequence."

"I would now like to formally request a copy of the invoice ledgers used in the Operation Motorman investigation. I'm only after the electronic copy so there is no need to copy any paperwork.I'm happy for the columns of the report that indicate the name of the person being investigated by newspapers to be redacted if this makes your decision any easier to make."

4.52pm: I think that that might be it for today. If you found this interesting, I am sure you will find more to interest you in tomorrow's Guardian and on MediaGuardian.co.uk. Thanks for reading and commenting. @Busfield